Tautological

The End of the World

2011-05-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Beautiful Lies.

An article on the Toronto Sun dated May 10, 2011 writes an article about a group of people who have recently been putting up signs of a specific date and time at which the world will end.

The article starts: If you haven't heard, the world ends May 21. It goes on thinly disguising the assertions that it will, then casually mentions a website (no link? it's 2011, it's not like you haven't ever heard of SEO).

Anyway, the first time I visit, there is a book about "God's final witness". I navigate away to write how it had been very interesting to see that the book was specifically targeted to Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Seems like the God of Abraham has something to say, but only to those who believe exists.

So I go back to the site to take a screenshot for this post, to find an additional book, this one without any religious reference nor specific date.

Okay, so if you believe it will happen, it will. Otherwise it will still happen but no date is given.

No wonder some people fall squarely and some don't. It just depends on if you look at this and believe it or if you question it, just like horoscopes.

Conscious Death

2010-11-19T22:24:00.000-08:00

When we are to die, and if we consider the afterlife as a conscious state, whose job is it to tell us that we are dead? Who will tell us to move on? Is it the angel of death? is it ourselves, our own subconscious? Can we only move on when we are at peace with our own death? Is that what life is; a constant fight against the idea of our own death?

Aren't these great questions?

The Tao

2010-09-19T19:31:00.000-07:00

[...] neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words [...] simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest [...]

(wikipedia:Tao)

Self as an emerging idea

2010-08-28T01:25:00.000-07:00

Thinking in binary terms or absolutes like yes|no, when applied to the conscious mind yields a paradoxical state which balances out creating time as experienced by a conscious observer.

Binary values are conditioned to encode a numerical prime base by relative value: 1|0. When this comes to the perception of time, the consensus is a sense of now, a common past and an unknown future: (-t, 0, t). This creates a perceived duality which creates perceptual symmetry.

The process of learning is of matching all inputs against known inputs, and catalogue them for future recognition and the ability to exert control over increasing periods of time in the future. As an infant develops into a child, self control is learned at the physical level: the ability to control limbs and the physical environment in the vicinity.

This physical sense of self is the one perceived as "own life", based on the constancy of perception: that which never changes is the sense of self; the idea of I.

All ideas, as individual units of existence, move in the same direction (future) based on a general idea of life preservation: ideas are built on ideas, sometimes for the better and sometimes probably not. Similarly, the idea of self moves motivated by self-preservation. Interestingly, while physically it is evident who "I" is, psychologically it is only partially evident what "I" is not. We know that "other" is not "I", but not exactly who. This unknown is the remainder of the life equation: the future of the individual in question.

Psychologically, we live social lives to discover ourselves in others; to learn from what we like so we ourselves can evoke onto the others what the person who we try to learn from is evoking on us: attraction. Symetrically, we also (at least partially) avoid negative conduct: this is where the will steps in; where there is a conscious effort spent to become better somehow.

There are many levels of attraction, as there are many characteristics that are attractive to us in various conscious planes: Physical, sexual, sensational, emotional, intellectual, psychological, spiritual, etc. These some of the different mind sets that a person can use as reflections of the self, and there are indeed individuals whose majority of attention time is spent on these or other planes (astral?, cosmic? -- at least historically, mythically or hypothetically).

Subject to the idea of life preservation, every thought and every concept is to be experienced and preserved in the memory of an individual: It is a unique perspective which describes the idea of one individual. As such, Cancer is to be remembered as the reason why some people we love, died; and the emotion these thoughts evoke to be the catalyst to a durable memory record: to preserve the memory of those before us. This is why consciously or subconsciously, no one wants to forget Cancer.

As the individual grows up, the attraction that the future exerts is the attractive pole of the time equation, but depending on how many dimensions are simultaneously used to express the ratio of inside/outside the curvature. In the binary case, this ratio is 1:0 with period π.

The emergence of the Self through time is an optimization algorithm at its core. By being more efficient than its medium, the individual justifies its existence.

No one wants to forget Cancer.

2009-12-03T01:07:00.000-08:00

Not the constellation. The disease.

You read the lyrics of a song
but you can't make sense of it.

What is it? What is it not?
What if it is? What if it is not?

Deep inside you really know you know it
but everywhere around you turn away from it.

You just haven't zoomed out far enough
but keep remembering, keep observing.

You know it's out there, coveted.
You know it's in here, protected.

Man is the selfish one, Woman is the creator.
But man, you get one chance, once in a lifetime.

It's your one in a lifetime... your life's upon a time.

Electron "point" is a standing quantum wave

2009-09-21T15:35:00.000-07:00

Ok, that might be a stretch: it either is or it's not or maybe it depends on how you look at it.
However, there's certainly something very attractive about an idea, such as standing quantum waves, with the potential to change the way we currently understand reality. After all, reality is perceived but ideas must be understood.

Check out these animations of sound waves radiated by simple sources (spherical wave animations). Then head over to see these hydrogen atom orbitals (electron cloud).

Whatever the universe/multiverse/everything is made of and whichever rules or heuristics it follows, it must be possible to increase our knowledge of it by reformulating the known rules into more general, more encompassing rules. After all, complexity emerges from simplicity not the other way around.

What will the world paradigm be like in 100 years? 1000 years? certainly not what we teach in schools. Most of us are even unaware of how archaic those views are, and our world view is largely based on what we learned a bunch of years ago.

Interestingly, not many of us ponder the validity of these paradigms. Archaic or not, it is also true that they are irrelevant for the pursuit of happiness, as happiness is readily available in the present. Perhaps everything stems from the simplicity, perfection and infinite potential happiness of the present?

Laying Creationism to Rest

2009-04-05T18:00:00.000-07:00

Those who know me personally might think that either I'm joking or I've finally flipped the switch to "crazy": Creationism is real, and whomever intends to live in a peaceful world must learn to accept this as a fact. However, creationist's story is not the full story.

The problem with Intelligent Design (ID) is that it implies the existence of a ~~supernatural~~ superior being capable of architecting every aspect of the known universe. Note that by definition, an unknown universe does not exist.

The problem that scientific minds have with this idea, is that it robs us of the idea of free will and individual creativity, as it would imply that everything good (and bad) was someone else's idea and not our own. This is certainly very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, both sides can coexist peacefully provided there are some clarifications:

Higher intelligence is the result of emergence just like our bodies are the result of cell specialization, not just a separate entity superior and independent to its constituents. This is the central tenet of any religion: we are part of a whole. As such, what scientists oppose is the idea of "someone else" who just happens to know a lot more than anyone else. This is the core of the problem.

This superior being is nothing other than the emergence of an orchestrated system, compounded by the will and actions of every single entity in the universe.

We are all intelligent designers, albeit not perfect. Please stop referring to God as some bearded dude that nobody knows. That's not what the holy books say at all. God is all of us and nobody in particular. Get over it, carry on, and start helping in making this world a place we all want to live in.

We don't need any money!

2009-03-22T20:00:00.000-07:00

We just have to find someone that wants to do what we want done.

Some people plumb for fun.
Some people fix cars for fun.
Some people cater for plants for fun.
Some people make all sorts of things for fun.
Some people write programs for fun.

Probably few people clean toilets for fun, but then again most of us crap inside most of the time.

Seriously. Who says I?

Happiness: straight ahead

2009-03-09T23:30:00.002-07:00

Apparently no one has bothered to find the formula for happiness. Here it is:

1. Make yourself see everything positively.
2. You will have mostly positive memories.
3. Things that happen to you in the future have a bigger chance of reminding you of positive things, since that's what you remember.
4. Rinse and repeat.

This might sound overly simplistic, but you have nothing to lose by trying and a whole lot to win.

The key lies in the present. This is why we hear over and over how the present is all what matters and how we have to live in the present: It's because it's our perspective on the present what defines our memories. Positive perspectives beget positive memories.

To put it in another way: if someone often makes you laugh, smile and have a good time, what would your opinion of this person be in general?

How do you like people to greet you? Why don't you greet everyone that way?

Make everyone feel special and everyone will think you are special.

Is Earth just a big computer?

2009-02-03T18:05:00.001-08:00

Assume it is. What are the consequences of assuming this?

First of all, we would have to wonder what is the purpose of our computation. What is the question? (or questions). This then implies that we have a purpose. However, it doesn't imply that there is a higher being that made or programmed us. After all, wouldn't this mean that this higher being, is in fact, not as intelligent as the computer that it created to answer what it cannot by itself?

So let's assume that it's a self-replicating computer, that it either gets the answer or it needs to construct a more powerful computer that does, ad infinitum. Eventually, we have to assume that there is a computer that does figure out the ultimate question, otherwise this post gets boring pretty fast.

So for the purpose of not being boring, what happens after the ultimate computer figures out the ultimate question? It needs to convey the answer to all the computers that created it, as that is its purpose, thus, every computer communicates to its creator what the answer is, back to the origin.

Then what? All computers cease to have any use, especially since the ultimate question has been answered (and thus all questions).

If our planet were indeed the creation of a being wanting to know an answer, and assuming that we like our Earth as is, we would have to keep it a secret and just pretend we're computing away, or risk obsolescence and ultimately death. Some would say that the certainty of having no purpose in life would indeed spell certain death, while others would argue that life is worth living even without a purpose.

I would be in the second school of thought. There needs to be no purpose, no fulfillment of any sort of tasks or dreams, for a person to enjoy the moments that make up our lives. Furthermore, I wouldn't keep it a secret. I'm pretty sure that if it makes no difference then there is no harm in keeping the playground, much like nostalgics keep their old computers around and play with their Ataris.

On the other hand, if this computer does become redundant and is scheduled for... well, not even recycling, then I'm sure I won't care since I won't be able to complain. You don't get to complain if you don't exist.

Alright, back to computing for me until I or someone else finds The Answer (and The Question)... actually, the answer is 42, right?

The path of enlightenment is of acceptance

2008-12-09T17:25:00.001-08:00

The ultimate Truth encompasses all other truths. Easy as pie: if you disagree with something, expand your mind to find out how that other point of view can co-exist with your own.

Something is everywhere, forever and never

2008-12-09T17:23:00.000-08:00

Extrapolating from the idea that God exists, it turns out that it doesn't have to be God who exists or not. The same logic can be applied to anything. Trying again that same exercise:

Within time and space, it is either possible or impossible that something exists. If it does, the chances of it existing increase the longer it exists for and the more space it occupies. Thus, if it occupies all time and space then there is 100% chance that it exists.

On the other hand, if something doesn't exist, the chances of it existing must be zero. A reader might point out that this proves nothing and is so obvious that it is not even interesting. I might say that this conundrum is at least reminiscent to Gödel's incompleteness theorems. But no need to worry about Gödel for now.

In the end, we end up having no answer to our question: does it or does it not exist? A third option exists: it both exists AND it doesn't.

What carries over from this apparent logical paradox, is that when there is something that is everything, then this something encompasses the concept of God; and that same something CAN exist outside of time and space as nothing, never.

Logical proof that God exists

2008-12-07T17:49:00.000-08:00

Clearly an outrage! ...but what if it's possible?

Logic boils down to the most basic form: true or false. Either God exists, or He doesn't. Starting with definitions, I will provide logical proof that the God with the capital G exists, the one that intelligently designed everything, the one that is everything and everywhere all the time.

If God exists, it's somewhere in time. Maybe yesterday, maybe tomorrow, maybe 2000 years ago. If. What are the odds that He exists within some period of time? Well, the longer He lives for, the more likely you will find Him in time. Thus, if he exists forever, there is 100% chance that if you look, you will find Him anywhere in time. One hundred percent chance that He exists... if he exists.

If God doesn't exist, then whenever we look, we won't find Him. There is no almighty, omnipresent, all-knowing being, because if there were, you'd find him somewhere in time. But that can't happen if the chance is zero, if he doesn't exist. So the chances of him existing are... zero.

If God is somewhere, then he occupies some space. Somewhere. Maybe you'll look and you'll find Him. His odds of someone finding Him increase, the bigger he is, the more places he can be at. Thus, if he were everywhere, no matter where you look, He would be there. 100% certain. He is everywhere.

If God is nowhere, then wherever we look... nobody will find him. Not even God himself will find Himself, since he's nowhere to be found. Since we start from the assumption that He is nowhere, then he occupies no space. He is nowhere.

At this point, logic tells us that God is everywhere, all the time... and nowhere never? Has logic proven that he can be in one state and the other? Oh, but he can't be in the other state. He either is, or... He is. So there is no OR. We started from the assumption that it was one or the other, and it turns out that the assumption was wrong. There is no OR.

For those non-religious, atheists that are still reading, there's room to breathe: I have created a paradox which I will explain in future posts.

One

2008-12-07T17:20:00.000-08:00

The first post, is the one that follows none.

Curiously, all subsequent posts will talk about the same thing, trying to make the same point.

I never will get to the point, but you might at some point get it.

Why would anyone read a blog that talks about the same thing? Stick around and find out. Curiosity is why.